This journal uses double-blind review. Peer reviewers must login
to our website to enter their peer review. For the first time, they will need
to create new account. They should log in here and proceed by checking for an
account or registering a new account.

Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process
and the dissemination of sound science. Peer reviewers are experts chosen
by editors to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of
written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and
identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal.
Reviews will be expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and
constructive.

The desired major elements of a high-quality review should
be as follows:

- The reviewer should have identified and commented on major
strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology;

- The reviewer should comment accurately and
constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the
data, including acknowledgment of its limitations;

- The reviewer should comment on major strengths and
weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of
the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study;

- The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised
by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific
conduct;

- The reviewer should provide the author with useful
suggestions for improvement of the manuscript;

- The reviewer's comments to the author should be
constructive and professional;

- The review should provide the editor the proper context
and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the
manuscript.

The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not
be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any
colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor.

Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional
use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly
involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors'
specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the
article.

If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the editor in
confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless
officially notified by the journal that they may do so.